Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The social obligation to be bad at things

notebook.drmaciver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 248 posts

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#91

Post by SuoDuanDao »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #70
dorkwood wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Years ago I can remember seeing an artist on Twitter hitting back against some critics in the comments, saying something like "I didn't ask for your criticism". At the time, I didn't understand why they were posting their work online if they didn't want to be criticized. I thought they needed to get a thicker skin. Now that I've started sharing my own work with others, I completely see where they're coming from. Havi…

I love the "feedback bucket" method for dealing with this. Feedback/criticism is basically shit. 99% of it is utterly worthless and useless. So I mentally put it into the "feedback bucket" together with all the other crap (my inner critic is a plentiful source of vicious, spiteful, targetted feedback). Eventually, from the bucket, the Flowers of Insight will grow. My mind's background processing will distill all that…

That is brilliant. As someone who can rely on only getting negative feedback from certain people in my life, I can definitely see myself benefiting from this approach.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#92

Post by trgn »

rkeene2 wrote: post #73
mikeyouse wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar experience after visiting a modern art museum with a creative friend of mine. I jokingly said "Even I could have done that" about one of the pieces and my friend replied, "But you didn't" -- hit me in one of those profound realization kind of ways. I started thinking about all of the effort it takes to envision something, find the resources, build it, work to get it displayed somewhere. Just creating…

For what it's worth, that is a meme regarding modern art ("I could have done that" + "But you didn't").

When I make a snarky comment about that sort of concept art, and somebody gives me the "but you didn't" response, I usually double down out of spite. When the only thing anybody can say about some art that it's "interesting" or "cool", it generally means it's pretty awful.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#93

Post by crazygringo »

> 1. You will be punished for trying new things.

> 2. You will be punished for trying things that don't work.

> 3. You will be punished for trying to understand how good you are at something.

> 4. You will be punished for succeeding.

This is a fascinating conclusion, and first of all, I think it's entirely valid to feel that way. And it must feel incredibly frustrating.

But I think if we zoom out a bit, we can gain a broader perspective.

Which is that, no matter what you do, you'll always be "punished" by some people. There's no right answer here. But other people will also reward you. (Also, funnily, sometimes when you don't even deserve it.)

And part of being an adult is in finding the right groups of people who are constructive and supportive, rather than tearing you down due to their own insecurities and egos.

This applies in finding a supportive spouse, supportive friends, and a supportive workplace. And it takes work to identify and find the right supportive people.

Supportive people will celebrate you for trying new things, celebrate you for trying things even when they don't work, celebrate you for trying to understand how good you are, and celebrate you for succeeding.

It's also very easy to have been surrounded by negative people for so long that you feel helpless, that you don't even know how to find supportive people or trust that they're there.

And that's a hard rut to be in, and there are a bunch of techniques to help you get out of it, which you might need a therapist to identify for you if it gets really bad.

But one that really speaks to this specifically is enrolling in local improv comedy classes. You spend three hours in a group of equally embarrassed "newbies" learning to follow the cardinal rule of "yes, and". Everyone is forced to be supportive. Improv is about literally coming up with new things for three hours straight, and everyone celebrating it no matter what happens (the only limit is not being offensive). I know people that credit it for turning their lives around, and where they made their best friends.

Obviously improv isn't the answer for everyone. But I hope the author can find the support they're looking for.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#94

Post by kaybe »

trgn wrote: post #92
rkeene2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, that is a meme regarding modern art ("I could have done that" + "But you didn't").

When I make a snarky comment about that sort of concept art, and somebody gives me the "but you didn't" response, I usually double down out of spite. When the only thing anybody can say about some art that it's "interesting" or "cool", it generally means it's pretty awful.

I think 'truely interesting' is one of the highest compliments you can give to art.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#95

Post by ajzinsbwbs »

wbronitsky wrote: post #48
mikeyouse wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar experience after visiting a modern art museum with a creative friend of mine. I jokingly said "Even I could have done that" about one of the pieces and my friend replied, "But you didn't" -- hit me in one of those profound realization kind of ways. I started thinking about all of the effort it takes to envision something, find the resources, build it, work to get it displayed somewhere. Just creating…

Oh boy do I resonate with this. Thank you for sharing this! I remember the first time I saw "Fountain" by Duchamps, which, for the uninitiated, is a urinal, on its side, signed and dated by the artist. For years, decades, I cast it aside in my mind as something silly, something artsy, something that wasn't for me. It was ugly, vulgar, and above all, obvious. For years, seeing replica after replica in modern and conte…

For some of these pieces, I feel like the hard part is going to art school, obtaining notoriety, etc. The art is part of a larger endeavor in which I haven’t invested the necessary work, or experienced the luck to have it pay off. When I see a piece where “I could do that”, part of what I’m feeling is that nobody would care if I did it. From my perspective, it seems like the artist is cashing in on some status they obtained. It makes me think the artist must be really charming at cocktail parties. I’m more interested in art that pushes the boundaries of what a mind can conceive, rather than pushing the boundaries of how little an artist can expend and still have their output celebrated.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#96

Post by themacguffinman »

LouisSayers wrote: post #82

Reminds me back when I went skiing for the first time with my gf at the time. She had lots of experience skiing and I guess wanted to “show me the slopes”. In showing me how to do the pizza stop, I said “but all the pros do the side to side thing...” so I did that instead. By the end of the day I was going down all the slopes with her (I still lost my skis a couple times), but she seemed a bit pissed off and I rememb…

The correct answer is "because I had a great teacher". She probably learnt skiing with less guidance and had to figure out a bunch of stuff on her own.

I still empathize with the phenomenon though. No matter what mindset you have or humility or conscious understanding of the differences between human ability, it's often viscerally frustrating to see others pick stuff up way quicker than you could ever hope to.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#97

Post by andrewzah »

the_af wrote: post #79
wbronitsky wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh boy do I resonate with this. Thank you for sharing this! I remember the first time I saw "Fountain" by Duchamps, which, for the uninitiated, is a urinal, on its side, signed and dated by the artist. For years, decades, I cast it aside in my mind as something silly, something artsy, something that wasn't for me. It was ugly, vulgar, and above all, obvious. For years, seeing replica after replica in modern and conte…

> I remember the first time I saw "Fountain" by Duchamps, which, for the uninitiated, is a urinal, on its side, signed and dated by the artist I totally, completely agree with your point and with the parent post ("I could have created this", "but you didn't"), but... ...you can still, after all of this, conclude that the piece of art is snobbish, artless garbage. In fact I reserve the right to do so. I agree with you…

> I don't know if Fountain is or isn't art.

That's the entire point. The fact is so many people discuss this one thing from 1917- it provokes a good discussion on what is and isn't art. I don't see how this is viewed as snobbish. There is no reason one is obligated to make "traditional" art.

> and didn't because I didn't think it's the kind of art I want to make or celebrate

Celebrate isn't really the right term here. It's an art piece that's displayed at a museum. The discussion around it is noted as important.

> still think "Fountain" is worthless as art

"Fountain" is not only art, but it has immense value as comme. Art shouldn't be looked at in terms of "worth". It comes down to human expression, which in turn has a specific context. Art doesn't exist in a social vacuum. Just because it isn't prototypical "beautiful" art doesn't mean it's not worth anything at all.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#98

Post by xigency »

the_af wrote: post #79
wbronitsky wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh boy do I resonate with this. Thank you for sharing this! I remember the first time I saw "Fountain" by Duchamps, which, for the uninitiated, is a urinal, on its side, signed and dated by the artist. For years, decades, I cast it aside in my mind as something silly, something artsy, something that wasn't for me. It was ugly, vulgar, and above all, obvious. For years, seeing replica after replica in modern and conte…

> I remember the first time I saw "Fountain" by Duchamps, which, for the uninitiated, is a urinal, on its side, signed and dated by the artist I totally, completely agree with your point and with the parent post ("I could have created this", "but you didn't"), but... ...you can still, after all of this, conclude that the piece of art is snobbish, artless garbage. In fact I reserve the right to do so. I agree with you…

I’ve been considering Shia LaBeouf’s definition, in response to the question “Are memes art?” on Hot Ones. Art is anything that moves you.

> I dislike it or consider it snobbish and not worth my time (or even "not art").

Sounds like you had a reaction to the piece or at least the performance art of signing it off as art.

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#99

Post by themacguffinman »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #6
thenoblesunfish wrote: post #2

To perhaps state the obvious, the reason we don't encourage people to say that they're good at things is that it's hard to judge for yourself. It has as much to do with your general view on yourself, and what your standard of "good" is, than what the average other person would think. So, you try to prove you are good by doing things, not saying things.

I have worked with people who could say they were good at things without sounding arrogant, and after a great deal of thought I have concluded that it's because of two things. 1. those same people are quick to say when they're bad at things as well. 2. their competency is never the point of the sentence, it's always a supporting argument on the way to the point. E.g. I'm an expert in this library and I struggle with…

3. Express it in terms of experience, which is a quality that I think people are more comfortable with because it doesn't imply innate or "fixed" talent. Experience is widely understood as a function of time & effort so people feel less insecure about it because everyone can gain experience.

Eg. I would say "I'm pretty familiar with this library, so here's my perspective"

Re: The social obligation to be bad at things

#100

Post by swimfar »

matwood wrote: post #89
will_pseudonym wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the d…

There are many variations on this theme, and the message is all the same - it's better to try and fail than to not try at all. And to expand on it further, growth and learning comes from the the struggle and often coming up short. I was about to walk out onto the mat for my first BJJ comp and told my trainer I was nervous about letting him down. He paraphrased the Roosevelt quote above with 'any person who steps into…

BJJ=Brazilian Jujitsu
Post reply on HN